Stan Lee Media and Disney Battle For Ownership of Marvel Characters

An anonymous reader writes "Stan Lee Media and The Walt Disney Co. have taken their arguments to the U.S. Court of Appeals over who owns the rights (and profits) to Marvel characters. Though Disney bought Marvel in 2009, Stan Lee Media (no longer associated with Stan Lee, himself) still claims copyright of the characters."

Comments

Skimpiest article ever

[halivar]

No details, nothing about transfer of copyrights, proof of who is successor of interest, nothing. I RTFA and found the summary is pretty much all there is to know. Anyone got a more informative link?

Re:Skimpiest article ever

[ganjadude]

you read the article?!?!?! you are aware this is slashdot right?

Re:Skimpiest article ever

[Compholio]

It's not a lot better, but some: http://www.denverpost.com/news...

We can be certain of one thing

[i kan reed]

The actual people who came up with the characters definitely don't own them.

Thanks, pro-corporate copyright laws and contracts!

Re:We can be certain of one thing

[Russ1642]

The actual people who came up with the characters sold them for money.

Re:We can be certain of one thing

[ZombieBraintrust]

If I pay you to create something why would you own it? If you want to own your copyrights then don't sell them.

Re:We can be certain of one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

>If I pay you to create something why would you own it?

Millions of Americans who have professional wedding photos would like to know.

Re:We can be certain of one thing

[XanC]

THAT is a huge scam.

Re:We can be certain of one thing

[i kan reed]

Crucial distinction:

They lost rights to everything they came up with in perpetuity as a standard contract of their employment. I view such heavy handed contracts quite dimly as a result of unbalanced employment negotiation.

Re:We can be certain of one thing

[tomhath]

It's quite common today for the photographer to assign the copyright to the couple and give them all of the photographs in digital format. The days of "pay me for every print" are thankfully over.

Re:We can be certain of one thing

[bondsbw]

By that logic, the burger flipper at McDonald's should be able to pocket all the money McDonald's brings in.

Don't ignore the fact that the employee's contribution is only a small component to the success of the business. Just because someone comes up with cool superhero drawings doesn't mean he alone also brings those to market, negotiates comic book, movie, TV, and other licensing deals, creates the content and publishes that content, or any of the hundreds of other jobs that go into the production including managing payroll, paying bills, etc.

Re:We can be certain of one thing

[Capt James McCarthy]

If you build your employer a piece of software that ends up making hundreds of millions of dollars wouldn't you feel entitled to some of that wealth?

No. You utilized their assets to build said software, charged them money, and agreed to it. Deal with it. Just because you lacked the vision to see that software making piles of cash, don't blame others because they have bigger vision then you do.

Re:We can be certain of one thing

[nahpets77]

In many cases the employees get a share of the wealth through stock options, RUS, stock purchase plans etc. If you want the whole pie then you should start your own company and work for yourself.

Background material:

[bmajik]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Short Version: Stan Lee has had nothing to do with SLM for over a decade - since his former friend and co-founder fled to South America to avoid federal securities fraud prosecution.

SLM is currently a few leeches who have nothing to do with the comics industry are trying to sink their claws into the profits of the creative class.

I understand that creative people need money to work, and the entities that front that money are due a return on their investment.

That's not what's going on here.

Re:Background material:

[tazan]

If I read the wiki correctly. The company went bankrupt, new owners took over and sued Marvel for a piece of the pie. Kind of like a lottery ticket: not much chance of winning, but the payoff is huge. They lost. Second group did the same thing, The third group which apparently is some kind of hedge fund did the same thing. This is their appeal. So not really related to Stan Lee or anyone originally at Stan Lee Media.

And people who write software

[Crashmarik]

Don't usually own the copyright to the code, when they are doing it for another company.
I get you aren't happy with the balance of power in this but remember the people who created those characters actually did give up their rights to them for payment. If you want to change the laws to give them greater protection consider you may actually be taking away their ability to sell their work and make a living.

Re:And people who write software

[mrchaotica]

Does Keanu Reeves own the copyright for Edward Scissorhands? No.

Certainly not, but that's mostly because Keanu Reeves had nothing to do with that movie.

Johnny Depp, on the other hand, almost certainly still gets royalties for his performance.

Re:And people who write software

[cpt kangarooski]

It seems obvious to me that the person who came up with the idea and directed it's creation is the copyright holder.

It's really a matter of directing its creation. Mere ideas aren't copyrightable, and merely coming up with one doesn't matter. If you use someone else's idea but are the only creative participant, they won't get rights in tor work.

And if you direct creation, you don't have to be the person who literally brings it about, either. But this is more than just paying someone a commission, or giving them the basic idea. It means that the other active participant isn't contributing anything creative.

So for example, if you tell a photographer that you want a photo of some subject, the photographer will end up being the author. If you tell him exactly what camera settings to use, what lighting, choose the subject, pose the subject, etc., then you're engaging in authorship.

. Likewise, if I hire someone to take wedding photos, then the photo copyrights are mine, as I commissioned the person to take them.

No, they're not. Being the author means having sole artistic control. Being a joint author would involve two parties having artistic control, and an intent to produce a joint work. And a work for hire, in which authorship is attributed to an employer requires more than merely commissioning a work. It requires actual employment, with all the relevant indicia (tax forms, insurance, providing the tools and work area, etc.) or in a handful of cases, contractual language.

You might be interested in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony and Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid.

Does Keanu Reeves own the copyright for Edward Scissorhands? No.

I think you mean Johnny Depp.

Re:And people who write software

[neoritter]

Apologies, wires were crossed when I picked Keanu Reeves and Edward Scissorhands.

He'd get royalties of the movie sales, etc. But, that's whatever is specified in his contract. It's not because he owns the copyright to Edward Scissorhands as depicted in the movie. If the studios decided to make a sequel to the movie, then they could even though Johnny Depp doesn't want to do it. They could hire some other schmuck to play the part.

Wedding Photography

[jsrjsr]

My wife and I own the copyright to our wedding photos taken over 25 years ago and have the negatives. Nearly all of the photographers we talked to at the time were still in the old model where they owned the copyright -- especially the older ones. The younger ones were beginning to switch to the new model where the customer owns the copyright.

There are still numerous photographers that stick to the old model because they think it makes them more money. Kind of an interesting belief given the number of people who never have more prints made. Seems to me that you'd make more money just by charging extra for the negatives or digital files.